> It is here that Gil is misunderstanding
> the idea of "implication" and propositional
> proofs. Many logicians, good ones, have
> fallen victim to a misapplication or
> misunderstanding of the truth tables for
> conditional sentences or statements.

I found that rather interesting, for in the case of my own logic expert
(that I have referenced on occasion when dealing with the formal stuff)
he has, in his truth table section, lamented the fact that someone
dreamed up "truth table" to describe the exercise designed to test the
validity of arguments.

Maybe that is part of the problem Gil had with understanding his error
on the amino acid sequence syllogism.

Gil has tried to cite Copi in support of whatever it is he's been trying
to say, and Gary appears to be trying to explain where Copi has gotten
things wrong regarding the topic under consideration.

How about that, an "appeal to authority" issue where one side of the
debate is alleging the "authority" has gotten it wrong.

Could be an interesting debate if it continues and we can make some
sense out of it.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.